Johannes (PRO)Hello again everyone. I didn't realize the submission deadline for this debate was so soon so forgive my brevity in this first round. I'm essentially just going to explain, very basically, the economic reasoning behind my position in this debate. Just to clarify for the purposes of this debate we'll do this in the context of America because other countries have different economies that don't always make these some truths and arguments applicable.
Anyway, my position is that immigration, on a large scale, redistributes wealth(or profit that is earned) from the poor(the American employee) to the wealthy(the employer). Here's how:
- Immigrants come to the U.S. and join the labor market looking for the job
- When a lot of immigrants come(especially in a short amount of time) this creates a supply shock to the labor market, in other words, the supply of labor(that is the number of people searching for a job) increases exponentially(goes up by a lot really fast)
- Supply shock to the labor market creates much more competition for finding jobs than there previously would've been
- Because of increased competition, employers are able to set the price of labor much lower than it would've been without the immigrants. This is because when you have a lot of people competing for a job(or competition) the employer is in a situation where he is able to lower the amount that he is going to pay for said labor until there is only one person left who is still willing to take said job at said lowered price. This process is magnified in the case of illegal immigrants because employers are able to pay them lower than minimum wage.
- American workers are forced to work for cheap and end up being paid far below the value of their labor due to this increased competition from immigration.
- So, where does the extra value(profit) go that the employer was just able to take out from the employee's paycheck due to all the competition? You guessed it! The employer! Essentially, the employer now has money he wouldn't have previously had due to the competition created through immigration which he is able to use for any number of things in the corporation(perhaps higher more employees, improve equipment or technology, etc.) that will vastly increase his/her profits.
- In short, large scale immigration creates competition via supply shock to the labor market thus allowing the employer to set the price of said labor much lower, ergo the employee is paid less. On the opposite side, the employer now has more money in his pocket to put into the company to continue generating profit. Therefore, large scale immigration redistributes wealth from the poor American worker to the rich American employer.
Thank you for reading, vote PRO!
Return To Top | Posted:
2019-03-29 15:15:20
| Speak Round
sunbright (CON)1. It is true that wealth is being concentrated on the hands of many american managers and employers.
This causes serious economic disparity between the rich and the poor. And this dire situation triggers anti-management sentiment among many american employees including immigrants workers. Why is this situation taking place?
2. I point out two reasons. First reason is the increase of the number of part-time workers. They are working with low wage and unstable working conditions. Many immigrant employees are included in those groups of workers.
Second reason is that reflecting these situation many workers have lost their interest in participating in the labor union.
3. However, these days new movement is emerging in american industry. The important thing is that some of the employers have recognized that `` the trend toward avoiding unionized workforce often has negative effects on productivity.` 1)
As a result, employers have realized that the spirit of ` Dialog` between employers and employees is important in their daily business operations.
4. Let me point out one example.`` Labor and management need to collaborate. Some companies have forged a joint relationship with labor and management with great success. For instance, the Hunt Wesson food oil refining in Memphis, Tennessee, has employees from teams and propose their own performance standards. Hunt Wesson has also divided the duties of the traditional supervisor and given them to team members, who rotate these tasks every hour. After making these changes, Wesson saw a 58-percent jump in the number cases of oil produced per worker, a 62.5-percent drop in absenteeism and a 10-percent reduction in material waste.`` 2) This evolutionary labor-management system in American capitalism is contributing to eliminating the vast wealth in the hands of many employers and to avoiding their oppressive behavior toward employees including many immigrants workers. At the same time employees have gotten an opportunity to ask for fair distribution of wealth toward employers.
5. From above arguments I believe the situation which large scale immigration redistributes wealth from the poor American workers to the rich American employers is changing greatly these days.
Thank you for reading.
References: 1) and 2)`` The Evolution of the Labor- Management Relationship ` by Russell Huebsch, http://smallbusiness.chron.com/evolution -labormanagement -relationship -36056.html.
Return To Top | Posted:
2019-03-31 18:38:36
| Speak RoundJohannes (PRO)Correct me if I've misinterpreted, but I believe CON instead of attempting to argue against my point has instead agreed with it and provided a list of prescriptive statements about how we are/should be working to help with this. Again, forgive me if I'm wrong, but I believe CON in their rebuttal has simply just brought up examples and other ideas that deal with solving this redistribution of wealth. That being said, there's not really much for me to respond to or say in this round, I think we are in need of some clarification from CON.
So I guess I will just use this round to further my own argument because I'm not sure that CON has really given me anything to respond to. If you weren't convinced by my the sort of step-by-step logical and economic argument from my first round, I'll supply some further figures and arguments now. The following words are taken from an article written by George Borjas, one of the world's leading immigration economists:
- When the supply of workers goes up, the price that firms have to pay to hire workers goes down. Wage trends over the past half-century suggest that a 10 percent increase in the number of workers with a particular set of skills probably lowers the wage of that group by at least 3 percent.
- Even after the economy has fully adjusted, those skill groups that received the most immigrants will still offer lower pay relative to those that received fewer immigrants
- Both low- and high-skilled natives are affected by the influx of immigrants. But because a disproportionate percentage of immigrants have few skills, it is low-skilled American workers, including many blacks and Hispanics, who have suffered most from this wage dip.
- The monetary loss is sizable. The typical high school dropout earns about $25,000 annually. According to census data, immigrants admitted in the past two decades lacking a high school diploma have increased the size of the low-skilled workforce by roughly 25 percent. As a result, the earnings of this particularly vulnerable group dropped by between $800 and $1,500 each year.
- Somebody’s lower wage is always somebody else’s higher profit. In this case, immigration redistributes wealth from those who compete with immigrants to those who use immigrants—from the employee to the employer
- I estimate the current “immigration surplus”—the net increase in the total wealth of the native population—to be about $50 billion annually. But behind that calculation is a much larger shift from one group of Americans to another: The total wealth redistribution from the native losers to the native winners is enormous, roughly a half-trillion dollars a year. Immigrants, too, gain substantially; their total earnings far exceed what their income would have been had they not migrated.
- When we look at the overall value of immigration, there’s one more complicating factor: Immigrants receive government assistance at higher rates than natives. The higher cost of all the services provided to immigrants and the lower taxes they pay (because they have lower earnings) inevitably implies that on a year-to-year basis immigration creates a fiscal hole of at least $50 billion—a burden that falls on the native population.
- What does it all add up to? The fiscal burden offsets the gain from the $50 billion immigration surplus, so it’s not too farfetched to conclude that immigration has barely affected the total wealth of natives at all. Instead, it has changed how the pie is split, with the losers—the workers who compete with immigrants, many of those being low-skilled Americans—sending a roughly $500 billion check annually to the winners. Those winners are primarily their employers. And the immigrants themselves come out ahead, too. Put bluntly, immigration turns out to be just another income redistribution program
Return To Top | Posted:
2019-04-03 14:55:57
| Speak Roundsunbright (CON)1. Let me begin this round by responding to the arguments presented by Pro in Round 1.
Pro argues that `` in short, large scale immigration creates competition via supply shock to the labor market thus allowing the employer to set the price of said labor much lower,ergo the employee is paid less.``` From this argument I understand that Pro`s main stance is that over-supply of workers in American labor market triggered by many immigrant workers bring lower wages among employees and this situation leads to increasing profit for employers. In other words, large scale of immigrants contribute to reducing labor cost too much. Pro stresses that the law of supply and demand in labor market is functioning in American industry. But I believe we must look at the situation which the law is not functioning.
The important thing is that ` immigrants with a college degree or higher earn slightly more than native -born workers in the same category-about 2.8percent more, according to recent U.S. Labor Department data`. 1) Therefore, employers must pay higher wages for them.
2. We must turn our eyes on what is going on American society these days.
Countervailing power led by many employees including many immigrant workers toward employers has emerged.
It is defined as ` balancing of the market power of one group by that of another group.Concept of countervailing power was proposed by the US economist, John Kenneth Galbraith in his 1952 book, `American Capitalism`. 2)
And ` in brief, it helps in decreasing monopoly effect`. 3)
3.Countervailing power produced two movements. One is the Occupy Wall Street(OWS) movement. Many employees have waken up for changing their exploited life.
`` OWS was a left -wing protest movement that began on September 17, 2011, in Zuccotti Park located in New York City`s Wall Street financial district, against economic inequality.` 4) And` `OWS `s goals included a reduction in the influence of corporations on politics, more balanced distribution of income , more and better jobs.` 5)
The other movement is The Fight for 15dollars Campaign. It` has had some successes in high-cost cities, such as San Francisco.
Seattle is moving to a minimum wage of 15dollars an hour. And California, Massachusetts and New York are on track to raise the minimum wage to 15dollars an hour over several years. The campaign also has set a benchmark of sorts for employers.` 6)
4. From above arguments I believe that as time goes on, the distribution of wealth is moving from employers to employees not from employees including many immigrant workers to employers step by step. This new social wave is contributing to revitalizing American economy and society.
Thank you for reading.
References: 1) http://www.cbsnews.com.
2) www.businessdictionary.com.
3)www.mbaskool.
4),5) https://en.wikipedia.
6)https://www.jsonline.com.
Return To Top | Posted:
2019-04-05 19:14:59
| Speak RoundJohannes (PRO)Round Forfeited
Return To Top | Posted:
2019-04-08 21:16:01
| Speak Round